The problem seemed straightforward enough. The Ogallala and associated aquifers
are being depleted. This immense groundwater reservoir, called the lifeblood
of the High Plains (and rightly so), underlies parts of eight states,
providing drinking water for rural communities and critically important irrigation
water for agriculture that feeds the entire nation. Many local, state and federal
projects are underway to improve water conservation and to study individual
areas within the High Plains aquifer system, but the last comprehensive hydrologic
assessment is more than 20 years old, and there has never been a comprehensive
geologic assessment. Meanwhile, water levels in parts of the aquifer have dropped
60 feet. A four-year drought shows no sign of letting up, placing additional
strain on an already stressed and very complex system.

Recognizing that extending the life of the aquifer will require improved hydrogeological
characterization and understanding of the system as a whole, geological surveys
in each of the eight affected states formed a coalition in partnership with
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to press forward such investigations. Senators
Jeff Bingaman (D) and Pete Domenici (R) of New Mexico, joined by Sen. Sam Brownback
(R) of Kansas, introduced legislation  S. 212, the High Plains Aquifer
Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act (quite
a mouthful)  to accomplish the goal. As stated by Sen. Bingaman: Having
knowledge is key to our ability to plan for the future.

We in the states
who are struggling to extend and preserve the life of the High Plains
aquifer know that ignorance is dangerous.

Lee Allison
Kansas State Geologist

The bill would establish a cooperative program between USGS and the state surveys
patterned after their successful collaboration on geologic mapping. The legislation
would also make funds available to the affected states, with USGS supporting
state requests for technical expertise; a review panel predominately from those
states would award funding based on scientific merit.

Lawmakers made changes in the original bill to give more control on project
selection to the governors of the High Plains states, and the revised legislation
sailed through the Senate by unanimous consent in April. It then made its way
across Capitol Hill to the House Resources Committee, whose Subcommittee on
Water and Power held a hearing on Oct. 30, 2003.
At the hearing, however, it quickly became apparent that this bipartisan bill
intended to stimulate additional coordinated research on a resource issue of
national importance was anything but motherhood and apple pie. In his opening
statement, Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) noted that there were
concerns that S. 212 was the camels nose under the tent for federal
water regulation.

A string of witnesses from the National Corn Growers Association and American
Farm Bureau Federation, among others, bore out Calverts statement. In
their view, the bill was an attempt to establish federal regulation of groundwater
and otherwise usurp state and local authority. According to one witness, the
bill was even going to steal jobs from migrant farm workers in Texas by leading
to new restrictions and regulations. Although some witnesses admitted that the
legislation did not explicitly mention regulations, they questioned the purpose
of a new federal program that they perceived would duplicate and divert funds
from existing efforts.

Even the bills proposal to establish a fair and noncompulsory system for
determining which projects to fund was held up as evidence of ulterior motives.
In the words of Scott Wall, a farmer from Yuma, Colo., who said that he left
his fields at harvest time in order to testify on behalf of the corn growers:
S. 212 is a complex bill. Governors must request assistance. A review
panel must be created. The review panel must evaluate research proposals and
prioritize program activities. Funding must be split with the states. Reports
on program implementation and the state of the aquifer must be generated. Why
is this so prescriptive? It makes me wonder about the real reason for S. 212.
And what might that reason be?

Wall continued: Another intrusion, no matter how innocuously drafted to
help states or to conduct research, eventually opens the door to more laws and
new regulations. Yes, its a slippery slope. Scientists could go
to school on the tactics displayed by these powerful interest groups.

Defending his bill at the hearing, Bingaman stated that he and his colleagues
sought to provide new funds to states to ensure a sound and objective scientific
base about the geology and hydrology of the aquifer. He emphasized that the
legislation did not have a regulatory component, nor did it represent the first
step toward federal regulation of groundwater, affect existing federal programs,
or otherwise adversely impact the ability of states and localities to manage
their water. He was supported by Reps. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Tom Osborne
(R-Neb.), who noted the interconnected nature of the aquifer and the need to
understand interactions across state lines.

One of only two witnesses testifying in support of the bill, Kansas State Geologist
Lee Allison testified: This bill provides a mechanism for states to develop
or enhance their own capabilities in hydrogeology This bill puts the
states on a more equal footing with the federal government. Allison had
already taken to closing his e-mail messages with the old western adage: Whiskey
is for drinking, water is for fighting. (In another century, John Wesley
Powell learned that lesson the hard way  we might call him a visionary
now, but his critics regarding irrigation and the settlement of the arid West
used other terms.)

Three of the witnesses who testified against the bill were from the Texas panhandle
district of Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R). Recently elected in a special election
after the sudden retirement of former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry
Combest (R), Neugebauer sought to portray the bill not only as creeping federalism
but also was adamant that the resulting program was duplicating existing activities
 local water districts were already doing a lot of mapping.
Moreover, he feared that with a cost estimated by the Congressional Budget Office
to be roughly $10 million per year,the bill would take money away from existing
water conservation programs funded by the Department of Agriculture. The casual
observer might be forgiven for seeing the logic in such a statement; in actuality,
the proposed research would be funded in an entirely separate agency and funding
bill.

On one point, however, Neugebauer was absolutely correct: The federal government
already has the authority to conduct such studies and work in partnership with
the states. USGS Associate Director for Water Robert Hirsch testified as much.
So why is new legislation necessary? In Bingamans words, the bill "sends
a clear signal" that this particular topic is of high importance.

Moran referred to the bill as "encouragement to states," acknowledging
that the impediment was not legal but rather a matter of priority and will.
Because authorization bills do not actually release any dollars  the domain
of the appropriations process  they serve primarily as a bully pulpit.
The bills supporters did not have to take this route; they could instead
have simply asked a sympathetic member of the Appropriations Committee to earmark
the necessary funds. But such an approach likely would have taken a slice out
of other USGS programs and might not have resulted in the kind of carefully
conceived, comprehensively vetted system that bill proponents agreed was needed.

Some of the other concerns at the hearing might also prove correct. The more
that is known about the state of the aquifer, the more restrictions that local
water districts or states might decide to put in place. But they might also
realize that they are being overly restrictive of certain activities, or alternatively
use the information to make a stronger case for additional funding of water
conservation, or otherwise help their farmers become more efficient and thus
more competitive in the process. As Allison said in his testimony: "We
in the states who are struggling to extend and preserve the life of the High
Plains aquifer know that ignorance is dangerous."

For scientists already leery of the political fray, this hearing might certainly
provide added impetus to stay far from the action, but there is a larger lesson
to be drawn and it leads in quite the opposite way. The opinions expressed by
Neugebauer and a number of others at the hearing reflected a strong sense that
they already had the information they needed. We as scientists cant assume
that policy-makers will come knocking on our doors for data and analysis. In
the absence of scientists making a concerted effort to bring the information
to them, policy-makers may well be satisfied that they already understand whats
going on.

At the outset of the hearing, Calvert called on the administration to provide
a cross-cut budget of all current activities related to characterizing the High
Plains aquifer, and he later obtained Bingamans assent to adding a provision
that would prohibit any use of the data collected under the bill for federal
or interstate regulation.

Whether such additional information and language changes will weaken opposition
remains to be seen, but the eventual outcome  a better scientific underpinning
for tough resource decisions  is worth the effort that Allison and his
colleagues have put into it, and then some.

Applegate directs the American
Geological Institutes Government Affairs Program and is editor of Geotimes.
E-mail: applegate@agiweb.org.